phpnode

The explanation becomes part of the context which can lead to more effective results in the next turn, it does work, but it does so in a completely misleading way

There's this underlying assumption of consistency too - people seem to easily grasp that when starting on a task the LLM could go in a completely unexpected direction, but when that direction has been set a lot of people expect the model to stay consistent. The confidence with which it answers questions plays tricks on the interlocutor.

Claude doesn't know why it acted the way it acted, it is only predicting why it acted. I see people falling for this trap all the time

Your calculations are off by some margin. Assuming 312kg per car, it would take 3962 minis to transport it all, somewhat more than the 4 you accounted for. Of course you could do this with 4 cars over a thousand round trips - I'm not sure which option is most likely to lead to success, I suspect both might arouse suspicion.

I think it’s actually a combination of people who have seen bad results from ai code generation (and have not looked deeper or figured out how to wield it properly yet) and another segment of the developer population who are now feeling threatened because it’s doing stuff they can’t do. Different groups

If that group is necessary then it's a damning indictment of the product/engineering culture. The CTO's job should be to fix the broken culture, not try to side-step it.

It’s new year, let yourself have a dance somewhere private where you can’t be judged. You might change your mind

Wow, I am very surprised that cookie stuffing[0] is still a thing. This could have been written 20 years ago.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookie_stuffing

Dreamweaver was extremely popular with amateurs too - they just didn't pay for it

The main difference with PR review is that code is tangible and real and carries more weight than a document full of plans and ideas. There is a broader acknowledgement of the cost of changing working code, but that price-sensitivity seems to evaporate when it comes to RFCs.

> you need one person to work by themselves really really quickly to ship and create the foundations

This is literally the secret of every successful project I've worked on. An individual, with high agency and low communication overhead has either been trusted to take the task on themselves, or they've done it secretly to side-step the approval process and organisational overhead. When the foundations are in place it's relatively easy to add engineers, but starting something from scratch with a bunch of people? doomed before it starts in most cases imo

It is impossible for people to write all their knowledge down, there will always be gaps, there will always be things taken for granted.

The point is that the author thought that they had captured enough information in their original draft - they can expand on that draft of course, but that's the issue - the task of writing the RFC can become much larger than just trying something out and getting real data.

Not a panacea for broken culture.

I've just left a company that used to have an internal RFC process and it was a very significant barrier to progress that stifled innovation, led to breakdown of working relationships and caused the most productive engineers to run for the exits.

RFC is a request for comments, and it turns out you have to be really careful about the kinds of comments you solicit and who from. As soon as you ask people to comment you are setting an expectation that you will take their feedback onboard and address their points, but there’s a real asymmetry here - it is much easier to leave a critical comment, or to ask a question, than it is to address the concerns or answer the question.

This asymmetrical nature puts much more work on the shoulders of the RFC author. Similarly, the people writing the RFC have typically thought much harder and longer and deeper about the problem than the people giving feedback on it. This leads to authors having to re-explain their thinking in detail, covering points that they’d omitted for brevity or because they are obvious to those with a good understanding of the problem.

Suddenly, the task changes from shipping the feature or making the change to achieving consensus on the RFC. I have seen that process take months - far longer, and being far more expensive than just doing the work would be.

The worst part is - no one is in the wrong! The authors write the RFC in good faith, the commenters review the RFC in good faith, and they rightly expect that any problems they identify are addressed. But the whole process can be soul crushingly slow, painful and full of professional conflict.

I’m not saying that RFCs are bad overall, but you have to have a culture of accountability, pragmatism and getting things done to actually make this process work.

> Is the idea to weaken the UK? To what end?

Yes, of course, the same with Brexit. It is is in Iran and Russia's interests for their enemies to be divided and distracted by internal conflict.

is this EmDrive v2.0? [0]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive

Curious about how this compares to alchemy - https://alchemy.run/

Popular mindshare in the US in the last 5 years - outside the US it has been huge for decades

This conflict didn’t have such a sudden start as the Ukraine or Gaza wars, it has gradually risen in intensity, becoming more newsworthy along the way

the issue with JSONPath is that it took 17 years for it to become a properly fleshed-out standard. The original idea came from a 2007 blog post [0], which was then extended and implemented subtly differently dozens of times, with the result that almost every JSON Path implementation out there is incompatible with the others.

[0] https://goessner.net/articles/JsonPath/

Thanks for bearing with me, I am sincerely trying to understand your mindset here.

So this is really a signalling thing? If you bought a Framework laptop you'd be signalling to your peers that you're ambivalent about supporting an ideology that obviously you fundamentally disagree with and is unanimously despised within your groups?

Ok, sorry I misread what you wrote. The question stands though

Your claim was that they explicitly support fascism. That doesn't seem to be the case at all. What you seem to mean instead is: They financially support a popular open source project called Omarchy, which is built by DHH, and you believe DHH to be a fascist.

You're welcome to your opinion, and I have zero insight into whether DHH is a fascist or not, but by no means is that explicit support for fascism! It's not just exaggeration, it's actually a lie.

If you buy a machine from Framework you might indirectly support a project which is maintained by someone whose opinions you dislike.

If you buy a Lenovo machine you will contribute to the revenue of an authoritarian government that will use some of that money to perpetuate human rights abuses against its own citizens, and maybe the citizens of your own country too one day.

Which is the most moral choice here in your opinion?

I don’t see any mention of their explicit support for fascism on their homepage, can you justify this claim?

You can rationalise your decision however you want, but to me it sounds like you're mad with the little guy for their lack of moral purity, but you're implicitly fine with a larger company doing much worse. That seems inconsistent at best.

if you're going to hold Framework to that standard, wouldn't you also agree that buying a Lenovo machine would be indirectly supporting an authoritarian government with a troubling human-rights record?

It sounds more technical than “country” and is therefore better

This is called demand/response: https://www.openadr.org/

A lot of thermostats support it

They do - formation.dev

It’s really not that hard to believe, rich people get bored and use the internet too you know. They’re just not that special and I find this narrative about how it couldn’t possibly be her really weird and deferential. We only need 33bits to deanonymise people on the internet, count the bits.

If there’s one thing semantic web folks like it’s fragmentation